Blog Archives
Deconversion Story
Johhny Bradford, a guest poster over at Unreasonable Faith, has posted his essay on why he no longer believes. It’s filled with all of the usual things for which I thought Christian apologetics have provided adequate answers, but I suppose not since I repeatedly see these same tired old arguments popping up in deconversion story after deconversion story. Let’s analyze this one and see if we can clear matters up.
The first one is typical: how could a loving God send people into a state of eternal torment for simply not believing in him? Well, the problem with that notion is Bradford’s theology of man. He believes that people are basically good, that we begin life with an “A” and gradually decline in points until we have an “F.”
But that isn’t what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we are dead in sin. Keeping with the grading scale metaphor, we are born with an F. But it goes deeper than that: we can’t earn an A, no matter what! Hell isn’t what God wants for us, hell is what we deserve. A fair and just God would send any human being that comes before his judgment to hell.
Thank God that he is also merciful. Because it isn’t his will that any should perish, but that all reach repentance, he has sent his only Son Jesus to pay the penatly for us and die in our place. All a person has to do is have faith that God has already accomplished his (or her) salvation, and that’s it.
The Old Testament sacrificial system pointed the way to the New Testament’s single sacrifice for all of our sins. The book of Hebrews makes that quite clear. So this sacrifice was necessary in order to appease the justice of God, which demands that he take action against sin rather than ignore it.
People go to hell on their own merit. I read once on a T-shirt that free will never brought anyone to heaven, but it sent a lot of people to hell. I forget now who said that (I want to say it was Spurgeon), but there is much wisdom in that saying. Whether you believe in Christ or not, you still sin and God must punish sin. Any sin, no matter how minor, makes you hell-bound. It has nothing to do with believing in or not believing in God. Only by placing your faith and trust in the finished work on Calvary can you avoid hell.
Which leads us to Bradford’s next point. Christians behave the same way as their non-Christian counterparts. The fancy terminology here is hypocrisy. Here, I agree with him. According to the intro to dcTalk’s song “What if I Stumble,” the speaker says that “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowlege Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.”
Christians aren’t suddenly made perfect by belief in Christ. Salvation is a once-in-a-lifetime event, but sanctification is an ongoing process that is often neglected. I blame the church in this case. There is a servere lack of discipleship in the church today. The main congregations are measured by baptisms, not retention. In reality, both should be a factor in determining the health of the congregation. In this, Bradford should take some of the blame as he is termed a “recovering Christian pastor.” So, as shephard of a flock, what did he do to help out with that problem? We wonder.
The atrocities of the Bible are discussed at great length here. The justification for what can only be described as mass genocide lies in the same theology of man previously discussed–man doesn’t start life with an A, he starts it with an F. Since the penalty for sin is death, those deaths were deserved. No one can stand innocent before God.
Of course, if I believed that hell was unjust, that hypocrisy was part of the case against the church, and that the atrocities of the Bible were unwarranted, then I would discard this faith, too. But I don’t believe in any of that stuff. Nor do I believe the typical atheist mischaracterization of those things, as Bradford clearly demonstrates that he does.
In all, I stand amazed that ministers of the Word can be duped by the secular opinion of the Bible and its contents. After all, we are taught that the world sees the Bible through a darkened lens, that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness doesn’t understand it. Yet, these same criticisms keep popping up over and over again, even though they are answered by apologists like myself.
Former Believers Had Severely Underdeveloped Theologies
Daniel Florien, curator of Unreasonable Faith, proves once again that former believers never actually took the time to understand theology. By quoting Robert Price, another ex-believer who also lacks a full understanding of good theology, Florien unsuccessfully tries to make the point that religious belief (specifically Christianity) stunts people’s moral, intellectual, and personal growth.
In the morality department, Florien once again cites fear of hell as the only reason that Christians are moral. No good for goodness sake; only goodness because of a reward in heaven.
I have a newsflash: Christians have nothing to fear from hell. The Christian’s faith in Jesus removes all need to fear going to hell. All of the good done by a Christian should never be because of fear of punishment. Instead, it should flow naturally from a heartfelt desire to please God. This is what saving faith is really about.
Christianity stunts a person’s intellectual growth, according to Robert Price, because wrong beliefs about theology will send you to hell. The safest path here is to not question anything. But this just isn’t right. I’ve said it time and time again that we go to hell because of our sins, not because of mismatched theology. It doesn’t take believing in something, it takes faith in Christ for eternal life.
I should point out that right doctrine and theology pleases and glorfies God, as C. Michael Patton argues here. That goes along with loving God with all of your mind. But it isn’t the main point–the main point is still faith in Christ.
Finally, Christianity stunts personal growth by teaching others a party line of morality instead of teaching them to think for themselves. In this post, I’ve argued that mankind is born into sin. We deserve the penalty for sin even when we’re fresh from the womb. Our entire nature is sinful. So, according to these guys, I’m supposed to adopt my own set of morals and beliefs based on what exactly? My sinful flesh? That’s a great idea.
A look at history should satisfy anyone that humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Ever. Not without a moral compass or some sort of guide. To the Christian, the Bible is that moral compass. Thinking for oneself when it comes to morals is just dangerous. This is moral relativism and the idea is a major philosophical failure.
How does atheism, on the other hand, promote moral, intellectual, and personal growth? Atheism has no moral compass, so it must rely on either moral relativism or some other philosophical system of morality. Usually, atheism assumes a Judeo-Christian system of absolute morality while trying hard to distance itself from God. So it looks like the Bible may be the atheist source of morality after all, they just don’t want to admit it. See this essay.
Friendly Atheist once posed the question If a miracle occured, would you believe in God? to its atheist readership. For humor, it added a webcomic where one character, a theist, asked another character, an atheist, what would it take to make him believe. The atheist said that if God printed a personal message to him in the stars, that would work. The next night, that happened and the atheist still found a reason not to believe. The comments section of that post was filled with agreement–the atheists almost universally declared that there is nothing that would make them believe–not even witnessing a bona fide miracle.
My point is this: who is more close-minded? Religion doesn’t close minds, atheism does.
The Power of Prayer Doubted Again
Image by vjack via Flickr
It looks like the atheists have done it again–misunderstood the power of prayer. Vjack of Atheist Revolution and Daniel Florian of Unreasonable Faith have both written recently on this topic.
I guess they both see prayer as a magic gumball machine where the person pops in a quarter and gets a supernatural answer to his or her wish. But that’s not what prayer is at all. Prayer is a vehicle to offer yourself into God’s service, a two-way communication tool between you and God. It is a way to help yourself accept God’s will.
Make no mistake–prayer is powerful if used properly and understood properly. I’ve addressed the topic at some lengthe here and J.P. Holding has addressed the same topic here. Both of us conclude that prayer is not a magical thing that will automatically grant you anything that you wish for.
When are atheists going to stop assuming that the Bible teaches that you can get everything taht you want through prayer? And more than that, when are they going to think that they’ve proven something that no Christian knows when they point out that you can’t get everything you want in prayer?
What do you get out of prayer? Nothing that you want, but everything that you need.
Image via Unreasonable Faith
I should note that I’ve also addressed the charges of why Christians have health insurance and visit the doctor here.
What America Needs to Know About Rick Warren
Vjack from Atheist Revolution has published a list of things that everyone needs to know about Rick Warren. He treats these things as if they are bad things, as if it is scandalous to believe any of them. I thought I’d take a look at his list and see just how scandalous it is.
- Warren’s much praised work on AIDS in Africa has been revealed as undermining scientifically-sound efforts to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in favor of thoroughly discredited religiously-based methods. He opposes contraception, even when it comes to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS. This takes anti-intellectualism and religious delusion to astounding levels.
- Warren opposes reproductive rights for women and stem cell research. He has criticized Obama’s position on these issues and vowed to pressure him into changing his mind. This should be worrisome for anyone who values separation of church and state.
- He was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the measure which rolled back civil rights for many Californians by denying marriage to GLBT couples. This is bigotry.
- Warren has equated gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. This is bigotry.
- Warren has publicly stated that he would not vote for an atheist, regardless of qualifications. He thinks that no atheist could possibly be worthy of holding office. This is bigotry.
- He is a creationist. Lest we dismiss this as mere stupidity, please remember that many of us are still having to fight to keep this nonsense out of our schools. (source)
All right, let’s break this down:
- In other words, if people aren’t allowed to have sex wherever and whenever and with whomever they want–which is what “scientifically-sound” methods do–then the approach is no good. It is no good to teach people to keep their pants up, no, we must give them condoms and allow them to have sex all willy-nilly. The only 100% effective method of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is abstinence. The problem isn’t the method, as Vjack implies, the problem is the committment level of the people in question. I’ve covered this topic before.
- “Reproductive rights” is a very nice way to say “abortion.” Vjack is trying to use less emotionally-charged words in order to downplay a serious ideological argument. What Warren is opposing is the murder of the unborn children. Vjack himself admits to holding a similar position in this post.
- Proposition 8 was nothing less than an attempt to legislate morality, and therefore should not have been passed. My views on gay marriage are rather complex and best discussed in a separate post. For now, let’s say that I disagree with Proposition 8 but I think that it is harsh to call its supporters bigots. There are sound intellectual reasons to oppose gay marriage, but they are all grounded in the Bible and therefore have no place in the law books.
- Warren has never equated gay marriage with incest or pedophilia. What he has done is question where the state will draw the line as far as what immoral marriages it will allow. To that end, he cited incest and pedophilia as two examples of what may be allowed next. History offers no examples since gay marriage has been as universally forbidden as incest and pedophilia among the many cultures that have existed. Warren was speculating, not equating.
- I’m not going to disagree with this point. This is bigotry.
- There are many intellectual and philosophical reasons that lead someone to be a creationist. Just as there are many philosophical and intellectual reasons that lead someone to be a naturalist. I don’t call naturalism “nonsense,” even if I think that a person who holds the position is being intellectually dishonest. Neither view is nonsense; but one must be incorrect. I’ve made my stance known. Now, what about teaching creationism in school? It toes the line, but I don’t think that it should be illegal.
Vjack reveals himself as very close-minded to other points of view. He is so certain that atheistic naturalism is correct, that he won’t even consider the position of the other side. Perhaps Vjack is guilty of the same bigotry that he accuses others of.
What Do Christians Have to Live For?
A while back, Vjack of Atheist Revolution asked, “What do Christians have to live for?” He then proposed three ideas. First, he posits that we live for God. This is an excellent suggestion, though Vjack has no idea how it would be accomplished. Second, he thought that we might live for either the Rapture or the afterlife. This offers no incentive to take care of the planet since we are only on it for a short time. Third, he asks what incentive that there is for a Christian to be moral if all of his sins are paid for by Christ. Let’s address all three points.
First, how would a Christian go about living for God? One of the cries of the Reformation was soli Deo gloria, for God’s glory alone. The apostle Paul offers this as a suggestion in Romans–“Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” Living for God is simple: place God first in everything that you think, do, and say. Everything that you do should be an act of worship.
The second suggestion, living for the Rapture or the afterlife, is a terrible idea. Vjack nails the problem inherent in it; namely, that there is no incentive for taking care of this planet, since the Christian isn’t going to be around long enough for it to matter. But that overlooks that we are stewards of this planet and have been charged by God in Genesis to take care of the planet (Gen 1:28-30).
Finally, Vjack wonders why Christians don’t rape and murder at will because all of their sins are paid for by Christ. The apostle Paul anticipated this sort of mentality when he wrote to the Romans. After building his case for salvation by grace without works of law, he asks if we should go on sinning so that grace may abound all the more. He answers with a resounding NO! Then asks, “How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom 6:2) If we are in Christ, we are dead to sin and alive to God (Rom 6:11). We are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). People who are alive to God demonstrate the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control by the power of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Therefore:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Rom 6:12-14)
What’s the REAL Message Here?
Vjack from Atheist Revolution reveals his position as a pro-life atheist. While I commend his pro-life stance, I don’t admire his reasoning. It goes like this:
Personally, I favor reducing the number of abortions performed through reality-based sex education and widespread availability of affordable and effective contraception. By reducing the number of unwanted pregnancy, we can reduce the number of abortions without having to infringe upon anyone’s reproductive rights. (source)
First of all, every “fetus” or “embryo” is a potential human life and should be afforded the same care as any child. You wouldn’t kill a child just because he or she became inconvenient. So it bothers me that Vjack refers to abortion as a “reproductive right.”
That point aside, what is Vjack really saying here? He favors “widespread availability of affordable and effective contraception.” What that means, translated, is that he is all for having sex with whomever whenever desired.
Abstinence is all about self-control. This is yet another example of the atheist community not being big on practicing self-control. But can we expect them to? After all, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and the atheist is not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should not expect that an atheist would have any appreciation of the fine art of self-control. Atheism is nothing less than creating an intellectual excuse to disobey God.
Now let me add a caveat. I’m not for abstinence-only sex education. I think that it is important to teach the benefits and drawbacks of all of the contraceptives, as well as allowing kids to weigh the pros and cons of abstinence. Let each decide what is right for him or her.
For the Christian, the only correct choice is abstinence. That is the only choice pleasing to God. But this choice is more open to Christians than to atheists because a Christian indwelled by the Holy Spirit and charged with a desire to please God will be able to muster the self-control to remain chaste until marriage.
I should add that the task isn’t impossible for the atheist. My wife knows non-Christians that have remained chaste until marrige. A feat of self-control like this, however, is far more likely to be found in someone with a desire to please God.
Unfortunately, many Christians do not choose abstinence. All that proves is that Christians aren’t perfect, it doesn’t mean that abstinence is not a valid choice.
On Ownership
It is a frequent argument from atheists that Jesus doesn’t want us to own anything; that we are to sell everything and trust God alone to provide for us. This assertion is patently false, as we will soon see. It relies on taking a verse out of context. The Bible supports and defends ownership of property; it is one of the ways in which we are made in God’s image. Our ownership of property mirrors his ownership of the universe, and it pleases him when we are wise with the use of our resources.
First, let’s look at the atheists’ side. They cite Luke 18:18-22 as saying that Christians must sell everything and own nothing in order to get to heaven. They don’t tell you that this is a command given to only a particular ruler who had great treasures on earth. Jesus was trying to send the message not to rely on material possessions.
To refute this point, let’s look at what the Bible has to say about ownership of property. Often, everything goes back to Genesis, so we’ll start there. What we find is God giving the earth to man:
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Gen 1:28-30, emphasis added)
In this perfect creation, man is to subdue the earth, make it his own, and God has gifted it to him. But we live in a post-Fall world, which we all know isn’t perfect. What does God say after the Fall?
Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (Gen 3:17-19)
God doesn’t revoke ownership of the planet. Instead, he curses the ground and makes it grow thorns and thistles. Man has to work to provide himself with food now. Post-Fall, man still owns and cares for the planet.
It’s obvious that corporately, we own the planet. But is there private ownership? It turns out that the Ten Commandments hold a clue to that in the command, “You shall not steal” (Ex 20:14). Obviously, if there are no personal possessions, then you can’t steal. This command makes no sense if personal ownership is forbidden. So individual ownership is biblical by the Mosaic Law.
It is also biblical to enjoy your possessions:
Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart. (Eccl 5:18-20)
But it is never biblical to rely on your material possessions (see Mt 6:19-20 and Eccl 5:10-12). Reliance on material possessions takes focus away from God.
Ultimately, God owns everything (Ps 24:1). So really we are stewards acting in his stead. We will have to give an account of how we used the resources that he gave us–time, money, health, and all of our other blessings. So it is important to exercise good stewardship over our little corner of the world. It pleases God when we get it right.
The atheist once again relies on a misreading of the biblical text in order to arrive at an unwarranted conclusion. Ownership of property is biblical and a blessing from God. Admittedly, it offers many temptations to sin. The most obvious temptation is theft. The next most obvious is coveting your neighbor’s PlayStation III. These are corruptions of something that was good from the start, and should not be confused with a biblical picture of ownership.
For more information on biblical ownership, stewardship, and similar subjects, please visit generousgiving.org.
Wafergate Revisited
As expected, atheists loved PZ Myers’s desecration of the Eucharist. He drove a rusty nail through it, then threw it a trashcan next to a page from the Koran and a few pages from The God Delusion. His message: nothing is to be held sacred. Question everything.
I’m in sympathy with Jimmy Akin calling for PZ to be fired. I believe that he is a poor representative of the university. His conduct is inexcusable for a man in his position. He has proven that he will offend the sensibilities of religious and nonreligious alike, and an educator must show the utmost respect for the individuals that he educates. PZ has not done that.
However, instead of flaming PZ himself, send a letter to his bosses at the university. I think I’ll throw something together this weekend and mail it in. Jimmy provides the addresses in his thoughtful post, but I’ll reprint them here for convenience:
President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455Via phone: 612-626-1616
Via fax: 612-625-3875
Via e-mail: upres@umn.eduChancellor Jacqueline Johnson
309 Behmler Hall
600 East 4th Street
Morris, MN 56267320-589-6020
E-mail: grussing@morris.umn.edu
Of course, we should join the hundreds already praying for Myers’s conversion to Christianity.
Wafergate
I’ve been reading the response to PZ Myers’s unfortunate blog post. It has been dubbed many things, but the one I like is “Wafergate,” which is what I will stick to in this post. I think that this issue is getting far more attention than it deserves, as PZ Myers is little more than a bitter and sour little man with an insanely popular blog. I can’t understand his popularity, even with atheists, because each of his virulent posts reveals nothing but hatred for religion. Such focused and intense hatred isn’t good for a person.
For the benefit of those of you that have no idea what is going on, let me start from the beginning. Webster Cook, a University of Florida student, palmed a Eucharist at a Catholic Mass instead of eating it. He took it out of the chapel and held it hostage for several days. Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 